Men with small testes are more likely to be cuckolded. Women look for affectionate men for life partners because they are more likely to be better parents. However, they are also less likely to actually fertilize their partners, a role that falls primarily on men with larger testes.

There is a grain of truth in the truism that women seek out alpha males for sex but prefer beta males for life partners.

AverageAmericanGuy:Men with small testes are more likely to be cuckolded. Women look for affectionate men for life partners because they are more likely to be better parents. However, they are also less likely to actually fertilize their partners, a role that falls primarily on men with larger testes.

There is a grain of truth in the truism that women seek out alpha males for sex but prefer beta males for life partners.

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo:AverageAmericanGuy: Men with small testes are more likely to be cuckolded. Women look for affectionate men for life partners because they are more likely to be better parents. However, they are also less likely to actually fertilize their partners, a role that falls primarily on men with larger testes.

There is a grain of truth in the truism that women seek out alpha males for sex but prefer beta males for life partners.

AverageAmericanGuy:Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: AverageAmericanGuy: Men with small testes are more likely to be cuckolded. Women look for affectionate men for life partners because they are more likely to be better parents. However, they are also less likely to actually fertilize their partners, a role that falls primarily on men with larger testes.

There is a grain of truth in the truism that women seek out alpha males for sex but prefer beta males for life partners.

Alpha males make shiatty fathers.

Yes, but they make perfect mates as far as sexual selection goes.

Of course, women want their DNA. But too many women want it, alpha males tend to have children by multiple women, which divides their ability to support them, if they bother at all.

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo:AverageAmericanGuy: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: AverageAmericanGuy: Men with small testes are more likely to be cuckolded. Women look for affectionate men for life partners because they are more likely to be better parents. However, they are also less likely to actually fertilize their partners, a role that falls primarily on men with larger testes.

There is a grain of truth in the truism that women seek out alpha males for sex but prefer beta males for life partners.

Alpha males make shiatty fathers.

Yes, but they make perfect mates as far as sexual selection goes.

Of course, women want their DNA. But too many women want it, alpha males tend to have children by multiple women, which divides their ability to support them, if they bother at all.

This is why men with small testicles can find mates. These women are looking to find a good father for their children.

AverageAmericanGuy:Men with small testes are more likely to be cuckolded. Women look for affectionate men for life partners because they are more likely to be better parents. However, they are also less likely to actually fertilize their partners, a role that falls primarily on men with larger testes.

There is a grain of truth in the truism that women seek out alpha males for sex but prefer beta males for life partners.

There really is no such thing as an 'alpha male' in modern humans, despite what you might like to think. More men like to believe in this myth than women. Sure, self-confidence is highly attractive, but that has nothing to do with humans living like they are pack animals. The self-professed alpha male jocks of my high school are fat and balding middle aged men working at the auto parts store today-- divorced and alcoholic. This 'alpha' concept that some people want to believe (and there are hilarious write-ups about it on 'how to pick up women'), is a byproduct of living as a male in a post-feminist world, where gender roles and expectations are all messed up. Women only want to be treated as 'equals' when they want to be treated as equals-- not all the time.

If anything, and if true, the article is interesting for exploring the role of testosterone on behavior, and the role of life's circumstances on testosterone production. Fatherhood, in its true diaper-changing glory is more than a bit emasculating, and parents of young kids generally don't fark like rabbits anymore. They are exhausted, and if they are first-time parents, their entire lives and identities have changed. It would be interesting to explore how this affects testosterone production.

To further complicate matters, it would be interesting to know more about how hormone-based birth control impacts a woman's partner selection. Basically, her body is tricked into thinking it is pregnant all the time. I have wondered if women on the pill are more likely to select 'better' life partners as a result. Ironically, these same hormones tend to reduce the female libido.

o'really:soooo, if i want babies, i should measure the guys balls on the first date?

what is a good measurement technique? string? roll em around with my fingers to compare by memory?

if i don't want babies, should i seek out the big balled guys?

daily fail, you confuse me so.

This article really just says guys who play small ball may be more interested in nurturing their kids. It's implied that guys with bigger balls are better at conceiving because they produce more sperm. Having said that, the only real way to measure them is by rolling them around in the mouth.

Not all that new. Some of us have realized that for decades now. Believe it or not, history backs it up.

Since recorded history we've been involved in nearly continuous warfare for most of 10,000 years with only a total of 286 at peace. 99% of the wars have been started by men. History is full of political leaders getting all macho with each other and promptly forcing the average citizens to march into bloody wars for them.

Look at Napoleon. He couldn't stay out of battle, even abandoned several thousand of his loyal soldiers in the middle east to die of disease and starvation as he sailed home, not bothering to keep them supplied or provide them with a way back. Yet the French idolize him.

Look at General Patton. He dreamed of being a great battle hero. He charged headlong into battle dragging his troops along, using the poorly designed and very vulnerable Sherman Tank and considered anyone without his drive to fight to be a coward.Genghis Kahn slaughtered hundreds of thousands for the thrill of conquest and a drive to rule the world. He had so many children from rape that 1 out of 5 people in his homeland today can claim a DNA connection.

Guys invented the most horrible torture devices to use on each other and thought nothing of putting another human being through hideous pain for days at a time. They also invented the 'Saw': hanging a person upside down, legs spread, then taking something like a two man tree saw and cutting him in half starting at the crotch. The hanging was designed to keep blood flowing to the brain to keep the victim alive as the teeth cut through hips, balls, bowels and spinal cord, allowing him to experience the horrendous pain for as long as possible. Usually the agony ended when they reached the heart.

A 'manly' man tends to be a crappy father, husband and nurturer. He tends to anger quickly and fight almost at the drop of a pin. Usually, he cheats on his spouse and finds nothing wrong with it, though if she cheats on him, he can fly into a killing rage, since another man>/b> took his woman. It's less about love than ownership.

We've known about the effects of testosterone for years. We've understood how the majority of the powerful leaders consider their positions for the power and not for the good of their people. Look at the examples of past and current dictators and the vast, ungodly amount of innocents slaughtered just because their authority was challenged or they got annoyed.

President Johnson kept the Vietnam war going by micromanaging it, refusing to let his generals do what they did best -- lead their armies. As a result, thousands of our soldiers were needlessly slaughtered because while playing politics, he would often refuse to let a city known to be arming up be attacked until after it was fully ready for battle. He also had a habit, behind closed office doors, of slapping his wang out on the desk to demonstrate how manly he was.

His testosterone fueled brain cost us thousands of young men and women and got even thousands more Vietnamese civilians slaughtered. (Yes. It's all on record.)

Even today we have men who just love to physically fight, turned on by the pain and brutal impacts. We have powerful business leaders who are disconnected from their workers and their customers who think only of the power and the money they can gain. Why do you think the majority of lawyers are men? The verbal combat. The tons of money.

You've probably known the big kid in school, who used his brute strength to settle arguments or the hard core gang members who thought nothing of killing someone for any reason.

However, in the current time, we need these people, to an extent because there are far too many others like them more than willing to take by force everything you own.

In various nations, you can't dig a garden plot without striking the buried bones of fallen soldiers. Archeologists are forever unearthing ancient bones of people who died from hideous wounds.

10,000 years of nearly continuous war.

If there are aliens out there in space, maybe they have a real good reason for not openly contacting us. To them it might be like poking a stick into a nest of rattlesnakes or kicking a wasps nest.

So in the evolutionary psychology world, there's this debate between whether humans were monogamous or not before the dawn of time. On the pro-monogamy side (best spelled out in "The Naked Ape"), they point to the fact that our testicles are smaller than our closest ancestors (chimps, although they neglect bonobos, but bonobos are also larger). The pro-polyamory side (articulated in "Sex at Dawn") points to how we're much larger than all other primates, *especially* those that are monogamous (gibbons). There's a lot of other things that both sides look at, but the key point is that testicle size in humans is an issue of contention.

What a study like this might imply is that we have been selecting more monogamous-leaning males over time, which has been a fundamental shift in our species. The two crowds will argue over when this happened (The Naked Ape crowd arguing it happened as humans came to be, with the Sex at Dawn crowd arguing that it happened at the advent of agriculture), but they can both use the data to argue the same thing - that their story is right. Which means we can expect more studies on male testicle size for decades to come. I'll predict two - you'll eventually see a study of relative testicle size between aboriginal cultures (particularly polyamorous cultures) and western cultures. Also, a study of relative testicle size of children born to parents who have sex, don't have sex and have sex with multiple partners while pregnant (the idea being that pre-historic humans would have had lots of sex during pregnancy if they're as free-loving as the Sex at Dawn people paint them, perhaps that would increase testosterone exposure and perhaps have profound effects on a child's development, including a child's testicle size).

Rik01:Look at General Patton. He dreamed of being a great battle hero. He charged headlong into battle dragging his troops along, using the poorly designed and very vulnerable Sherman Tank and considered anyone without his drive to fight to be a coward.

In Patton's defense, the Sherman was not at all poorly designed and not nearly as vulnerable as it has been made out to be. It was easier to produce in large numbers, more reliable, faster, and easier to fix than almost any tank of its day (except maybe the t-34). No, it couldn't go toe-to-toe with a Tiger and expect to win, but tactics that suited its strengths easily negated the Tiger's superiority.

Later models (esp. the A3E8) also regularly took on T-34/85s in Korea and won.

juvandy:Rik01: Look at General Patton. He dreamed of being a great battle hero. He charged headlong into battle dragging his troops along, using the poorly designed and very vulnerable Sherman Tank and considered anyone without his drive to fight to be a coward.

In Patton's defense, the Sherman was not at all poorly designed and not nearly as vulnerable as it has been made out to be. It was easier to produce in large numbers, more reliable, faster, and easier to fix than almost any tank of its day (except maybe the t-34). No, it couldn't go toe-to-toe with a Tiger and expect to win, but tactics that suited its strengths easily negated the Tiger's superiority.

Later models (esp. the A3E8) also regularly took on T-34/85s in Korea and won.

Patton had that greatest of assets for a general, a high command that knew how best to use his abilities. Much of success in war is just putting the right leaders in the right situations.

Rik01:A 'manly' man tends to be a crappy father, husband and nurturer. He tends to anger quickly and fight almost at the drop of a pin. Usually, he cheats on his spouse and finds nothing wrong with it, though if she cheats on him, he can fly ...

You realize you're a straight farking nutter, right? I mean, read what you just wrote. The article is basically some pseudo-science about ball size and parenthood. And you're getting all Napoleon up in this muther.

I almost NEVER read someone's profile here on Fark, because I rarely could give a fark, but I had to look. "Single, never wed" Ya don't say?

Listen bro, lemme help you out. Women pretend to dig "enlightened" guys, but in reality, they just want to be with a man. Cowboy up, you'll have a much higher chance of procreating.

Rik01:Not all that new. Some of us have realized that for decades now. Believe it or not, history backs it up.

Since recorded history we've been involved in nearly continuous warfare for most of 10,000 years with only a total of 286 at peace. 99% of the wars have been started by men. History is full of political leaders getting all macho with each other and promptly forcing the average citizens to march into bloody wars for them.

Look at Napoleon. He couldn't stay out of battle, even abandoned several thousand of his loyal soldiers in the middle east to die of disease and starvation as he sailed home, not bothering to keep them supplied or provide them with a way back. Yet the French idolize him.

Look at General Patton. He dreamed of being a great battle hero. He charged headlong into battle dragging his troops along, using the poorly designed and very vulnerable Sherman Tank and considered anyone without his drive to fight to be a coward.Genghis Kahn slaughtered hundreds of thousands for the thrill of conquest and a drive to rule the world. He had so many children from rape that 1 out of 5 people in his homeland today can claim a DNA connection.

Guys invented the most horrible torture devices to use on each other and thought nothing of putting another human being through hideous pain for days at a time. They also invented the 'Saw': hanging a person upside down, legs spread, then taking something like a two man tree saw and cutting him in half starting at the crotch. The hanging was designed to keep blood flowing to the brain to keep the victim alive as the teeth cut through hips, balls, bowels and spinal cord, allowing him to experience the horrendous pain for as long as possible. Usually the agony ended when they reached the heart.

A 'manly' man tends to be a crappy father, husband and nurturer. He tends to anger quickly and fight almost at the drop of a pin. Usually, he cheats on his spouse and finds nothing wrong with it, though if she cheats on him, he can fly ...

Well, today, all we have is a bunch of paranoid (code word for living in fear of the world) chicken shiat chicken hawks running the US. The real balls are on the soldiers facing realities of combat, not those in power living a comfortable existence in an ivory tower. A real man knows the world is sometimes a dangerous place, but doesn't go around pre-emptively killing anyone (women and children included) that are perceived as a threat. Seriously, there is nothing 'manly' about declaring war to drive up stock prices, oil prices, or whatever. It is the insecure man that has to kill something (or own a gun, or drive a big truck, or whatever) to feel like a man.

Therein lies the problem: how does one even define 'manly' in the year 2013? Last time I was in the US, I saw hipsters wearing women's pants, and wannabe 'macho' gangsters wearing their pants below their asses. In the 1950s, a 'wife beater' top (and even a T-shirt, for that matter), was considered underwear, and no self-respecting man would wear one in public. Baseball caps were for ball players and young boys. Flip flops and shorts were for kids or the beach. Facial piercings... dyed or frosted hair.... for complete freaks.